This time it is marijuana legalization. Hopefully the rhetoric is a prelude to correcting a mistake made many years ago. Nothing new has been added to this discussion in decades, other than “now we need the tax money.”

Opponents to legalization say more study is needed to determine the health risks. I say look around you. The second-largest drug study ever was conducted in the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, ’90s and ’00s, second only to that done on cigarettes.

We all know the answer. Just look at the Netherlands, Switzerland, Oakland and Northern California for examples. The only troubling connection I have found is between marijuana policy and politicians looking for a campaign issue.

I challenge all our government officials to become leaders. Stand up — there can’t be any of you left that haven’t inhaled, and you are all successful. Be brave — even President Obama admits the truth.

It’s a miracle drug! Does it cure impotence too? Oops. Not from what those pesky scientists have said.

Where’s the science to support any of this? If marijuana cures allergies, that would be front-page news. Insomnia? Get real. The truth is that people use the science argument only when the views of one party disagree with their own. In the words of one man who gets his weed with a doctor’s note, this whole policy is a joke that just legalizes what people already wanted. Medicine has nothing to do with it.

And never mind the environmental degradation, the used-up farmland and wasted water, the thriving and murderous criminal cartels that won’t pay taxes anyway and the populations sedated into apathy and complacence.

The reason for all this? It’s also green, but you can’t smoke it, though you can burn through it pretty fast.

Governments are pressured to sign on to this for one reason: money. And when money is the primary motivation for making wholesale changes to criminal and social policies, I think that ought to be a major cause for concern.

Welcome to The Seattle Times' online letters to the editor, a sampling of readers' opinions. Join the conversation by commenting on these letters or send your own letter of up to 200 words letters@seattletimes.com.